|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Board of Zoning Appeals MinutesCITY OF NORTHVILLE CALL TO ORDER: Commissioner Stapleton called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL: Absent: John Rae - excu Also Present: Richard Starling, Building Official APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Motion by Gazlay, supported by Durst to approve the agenda. Voice Vote: Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion Unanimously Carried. MINUTES: Motion by Ayers, supported by Gazlay to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of July 2, 2003 as corrected. Voice Vote: Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion Unanimously Carried. CASE 03 –08 George Harvey
Variance from Section 18.04 -d Grounds for Appeal: Undue Hardship. George Harvey requested a variance to allow expansion of a home structure from section 18.04, sub section d. Required setback of an accessory building from the main structure is 10’. He is requesting a setback of 9’ 6" or a 6" variance. He explained that originally plans were denied for the addition of a garage because of the set back requirements. He then proceeded to remove a tree which was in the rear yard, allowing the garage to be built 5’ at the rear lot. These plans were approved by the building department. After the approval he found out that because there is a rear alley he could have placed the garage 4’ from the rear lot line. This series of problems complicates the dimensions for the present addition to the home. A variance of 6" is needed. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: The question was asked whether the new addition could be lined up exactly with the original house. The applicant responded that no, because the interior wall would be off by 4 inches. Motion by Maise, supported by Haveraneck to grant the variance. Roll Call Vote: Ayes: Ayers, Gazlay, Lokey, Maise,Stapleton, Durst, Haveraneck. Nays: None. Motion Unanimously Carried. DISCUSSION Proposed Amendment Changes to Zoning Ordinance Chairman Stapleton referenced a memo regarding Proposed Amendment to Zoning Ordinance, Article 22, Section 22.01. A letter was drafted by City Manager Word to Jim Kohl, the City’s Attorney regarding the proposed amendment. In the past the BZA discussed the following language: "Any non-conforming property, structure, or use of a property that has been granted a variance, is requires obtaining a future variance for any modification in use, elevation or footprint." The Attorney’s opinion was that the proposed amendment would not survive judicial scrutiny. ADJOURNMENT: Motion by Ayers, supported by Gazlay to adjourn at 7:59 PM. Voice vote: Ayes: All: Nays: None. Motion Unanimously Carried. Respectfully submitted, P S Howard |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||